Graviteam projects

[Fercyful]

Originally Posted by frinik

I am not sure about the cockpit issue yet(they are still discussing/debating it on the Sukhoi.ru Avia forum )

ohh! hope they will add the cockpits the game will loose a LOT without them. Please don´t follow the ARMA/2 path...

now I have Steel Beasts Pro and is great have the cockpits of many of the units. It adds a lot to realism, and I like use the periscopes. Better have two playable tanks with cockpits and full detail that a lot of units and turn the thing in a "World of Tanks" style

[frinik]

Skybird I honestly don't thin that Graviteam has any intention of competing head -on with SB.SB is too well established and has 10 years of experience and success.I think their aim is more modest; to close the gap between WWII sims and the iconic SB which focusses mostly on tank warfare from the 80s onward.There's a gaping hole with no post war sim covering the 50s and 60s ( I am excluding old games like M1 Platoon or T72 which were neither satisfying nor well done ) which produced interesting and innovative tanks; one can only think of the Chieftain, the T54/55,the Centurion, the M48, the M60, the Leopard 1, the T62/64, the AMX 13 & 30. THis is the period when the legends of the classical age (WWII) of tank warfare ; the Tiger I and II, the Panther and the T34/85 - to mention the best known - were transformed through technological progess and innovation (IR, modern telemetry, firing stabilisation systems, new protective armour, more powerful guns and shells and later on computer assisted firing systems) into the icons of modern tank warfare: the Leopard 2, the Abrams, the Challenger II, the Merkava, the T80 and T90 and others lesser known from France, Korea, Japan or the PRC.

Anyway the 50s and 60s still offer a taste of the old classic tank warfare and a foretaste of what modern would eventually become.

Graviteam is not into the arcade style of game so I have no worried about that.Their previous tank sims(SF and T72 Balkans on Fire) both incorporated cockpits and in their discussions they referred specifically to the interior of the M60 and the T62 so I think they are conscious of the appeal and importance of having them.As for the AI and the tactics it remains to be seen what they can achieve.But their Blaze of War is going to be based on their RTS Kharkov Front Roads/Achtung Panzer ! game engine which has received praise for all sides and excellent ratings for a very reactive and cunning AI. I see that game as a preparation or a side dish for SB not a replacement nor real competition.But I could be wrong! Anyway it will be interesting to compare the 2.... Hopefully the Mission Editor will be as easy to use as the one in SF and with the active community of Eastern European modders to back it up there should be plenty of support.BTW their aim are both the Western market and the Eastern .European one.

Cheers

[Skybird]

Well, let'S see, I'm just sceptical after SF, and Blaze of War simply is an action game by the looks of the gameplay, no simulation. If they want to go into the simulation stuff with these wo tanks, they hardly can avoid to be compared with SBP, and then they need to offer something that goes beyond SBP or does it better.

Or they hope to fish off players from the regular marketing market, since many players simply do not know that SBP exists, it is not to be seen in stores and adverts, but a total niché product. A propject like a game needs to be calculated economically, tool, and I could imagine that this constellation of part of Graviteam'S formula (what is just business logic, I do not mean to criticise them for it).

[Rends]

Originally Posted by Skybird

..., and then they need to offer something that goes beyond SBP or does it better.

...

well that´s easy. It looks better. Well the tank models in SBP looks nice but the directx5-7 ? from the 90s the dev team seems to still use make them look cartoonish. While the SBP sim aspect can´t be beaten (from what i´ve read) they need to update the game engine to 2010 standarts. Imagine a SBP with the Graviteam graphics.
Guess some people stay away from SBP because of it´s outdated looks.
One of the main reasons why sims were so popular in the 90s was that they looked so real (for 90s standards). So if you want to make a sim popular these days you need to remember that.

[Skybird]

While the graphics are not the most modern, nevertheless they do a very good job to deliver the impression of the terrain, and rendering long distances, also the colour palette is very good, normal woodlands on a normal blue day, or fog and snow, can indeed look very natural. However, I admitted that the videos looks nice. But whether looks are what decide a good sim, I doubt. Falcon 4 has an engine that is 12 years old now. Lock-On looked better - but did not take the crown, due to other deficits. Same was true for Flanker 2 and 2.5. Blaze of War looks nice, no doubt, but it seems to be a shooter-type of game, with tanks instead of humanoid bots.

On the other hand, sights and scopes in SBP offer you views that are the most realistical and best ones you can get in any tank game - no matter whether NVG, thermal or WWII-style optical sights.

Check the plethora of screenshots in the SBP resources and then tell me that the graphics do not get the job properly done! They cover 4 years of pics. Yes, the SBP cpould be made looking even better. But no, that does not mean that it leaves important things to be desired. And some functional things it does better than any other ground environment engine I know of.

My point simply is: in a sim (and in cosims), I put functionality over looks. Unreal looks great, too. But that doe snot make it a sim. SF looked nice sometimes, too. But I had problems with it when thinking of it as a sim. As an action game, it was okay.